Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[rjs330]

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Evolution explains it very neatly.

If there is anything that is incredulous it's that anyone one believe evolution is superior to creationism. All evolution has going for it is that more people believe in it. It's a belief system.

 

[rjs330]

I guess you've never seen a real chicken. You can actually see the scales transform into feathers on their legs. And that's just on the one creature.

I used to own and raise chickens. It's not the same thing.

 

[Kylie]

What evolution explains is a neat system. But, as far as the big picture? Its fragmented and missing too many parts of the puzzle. Its off the mark if it tries to explain how and why evolution even exists in the first place.

So? Evolution is about how life forms change over time, and that's it. Complaining that evolution doesn't work because it can't explain how evolution got started is like saying medicine is wrong because it can't explain where you got sick.

Explain then? How did evolution begin to happen?

This is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. As I said, evolution is about how life forms change over time. And that's all. If you demand that evolutionary theory explains something other than that, then you do not understand evolution.

What brings it about had to be already programmed into the DNA. Programmed by a mind that foresaw needs before they became apparent.

No, evolution needs only variation, some copying mechanism, and selective pressures.

 

[Kylie]

Occam's razor doesn't do that at all. That's another belief. All so called evidence of evolution can be equally used to say creation is the what happened.

It's just as valid as saying evolitiondidit.

So then why is it that chimps have the same blood groups as Humans? And why is it that the gene for a particular blood group in Humans is more closely related to the gene for the same blood group in chimps than it is to the gene for a different blood group in humans?

Let me make this clear, the A type blood gene in Humans is more closely related to the A type blood gene in chimps than it is to the O type blood gene in Humans.

Evolution can explain this easily - the genes for different blood groups evolved before the chimp and human branches separated. But what is the creationist explanation for this?

 

[GenemZ]

You can include your views on the nature of God if you like. I just want to know if you thought He did it. It's an incredibly simple quesion. He drowned the men. Did He drown women and small children as well?

Do you know God is real? Why not?

 

[GenemZ]

So? Evolution is about how life forms change over time, and that's it.

I understand that much that life forms do change. Its no problem for me.

The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.

 

[Bradskii]

None of that shows evolution fr a common ancestor. Every single piece of so called evidence is ASSUMED it does. Cause they can't show it. Every single piece of that can equally be assumed to show creation.

No, it all points to a common ancestor. Every single area of scientific endeavour that I mentioned and more besides. All the evidence leads to that conclusion. And literally none of it to creation. None whatsoever.

So we have all of science pointing one way and a few people who read a chapter of scripture literally with no theory whatsoever that matches their conclusion. I'll repeat that: there is no theory. And they started with the conclusion before looking for evidence. There is no scientific evidence. They're not even doing science.

There is no theory ever proposed that has as much evidence backing it up than the ToE. And in opposition you have some people saying 'This part of the bible must be read literally'. That's it. There is nothing more than that. And even those in this thread who hold to it can't even agree on major portions of the same chapter! Hey, global flood. Nah, local flood.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you know God is real? Why not?

My views are irrelevant to the question. You believe He's real. So do you believe He drowned women and small children?

 

[Bradskii]

I understand that much that life forms do change. Its no problem for me.

The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.

Two entirely separate areas of scientific investigation.

 

[Bradskii]

I used to own and raise chickens. It's not the same thing.

Scales cannot turn to feathers? I don't have to show you two creatures where it's happening. I can show you one where you can actually see it happening and you still deny it? There's even a gene for it.

'By turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of growth, the researchers demonstrated the ability to turn scales into feathers.
They placed the unique chicken feather genes in alligator eggs, and were able to transform the scales into feathers'. Scientists identify genes responsible for turning scales into feathers

 

[Kylie]

I understand that much that life forms do change. Its no problem for me.

The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.

I've never seen anyone who actually understands evolution claim that evolution is an explanation for how life got started.

In fact, by and large the only people I've ever seen speak of evolution like that are creationists who say things like, "Oh, if you think evolution is so good, then let's see you explain how life got started? Can evolution tell us that? No? Then evolution is worthless!"

 

[rjs330]

Evolution can explain this easily - the genes for different blood groups evolved before the chimp and human branches separated. But what is the creationist explanation for this?

Lol that's not an explanation. That's an assumption. Similarities do not show anything if the sort. That's all they are is similarities. Similarities can just as easily be explained by God created it that way. Cause you have no evidence that it happened the way you claim. There was no observation it happened, no testing to show it can happen and you can reproduce it in the way you cla it happened.

 

[rjs330]

Scales cannot turn to feathers? I don't have to show you two creatures where it's happening. I can show you one where you can actually see it happening and you still deny it? There's even a gene for it.

'By turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of growth, the researchers demonstrated the ability to turn scales into feathers.
They placed the unique chicken feather genes in alligator eggs, and were able to transform the scales into feathers'. Scientists identify genes responsible for turning scales into feathers

Lol I've already read that article. It's hilarious that you think that's the same thing. Human being deliberately introduce certain DNA from one animal I to another and deliberately manipulate the DNA through stages and somehow this shows that nature did it naturally?

Preposterous. You have intelligent being manipulating DNA on purpose to produce a result they wanted.

They used to make science fiction movies as bout this stuff and it never worked out well. Eeevil scientists always trying to create and I yerfere with nature. Yup, how foolish.

 

[GenemZ]

No, it all points to a common ancestor.

You are stuck with that conclusion....

 

[GenemZ]

My views are irrelevant to the question. You believe He's real. So do you believe He drowned women and small children?

When He already knows how that child will be at 50? He alone has that advantage point.

 

[GenemZ]

Two entirely separate areas of scientific investigation.

The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.

Never a good answer is offered. You stand in a long line of obscurity.

 

[GenemZ]

I've never seen anyone who actually understands evolution claim that evolution is an explanation for how life got started.

Before something can live to evolve it needs an explanation as to how it began. At one time some were foolish enough to try... Their credentials could not save them.

So we are left with what? Evolution takes place with creatures.
Creatures that originated from nothing.

A very nothing that caused the life that will evolve into having animation and function.

 

[Bradskii]

Lol I've already read that article. It's hilarious that you think that's the same thing. Human being deliberately introduce certain DNA from one animal I to another and deliberately manipulate the DNA through stages and somehow this shows that nature did it naturally?

Preposterous. You have intelligent being manipulating DNA on purpose to produce a result they wanted.

They used to make science fiction movies as bout this stuff and it never worked out well. Eeevil scientists always trying to create and I yerfere with nature. Yup, how foolish.

Yet the same thing is found entirely within one generation of other birds as well. And not just turning scales into feathers but gradually turning legs into partial wings. Again, in one single generation. Pigeon foot feather genes identified: Study hints how scaly dinosaur legs could get birdlike feathers

'The study found that in pigeons with feathers on their hindlimbs or feet, a hindlimb-development gene named Pitx1 is less active than normal, while a forelimb-development gene named Tbx5 is active in the feet, where it normally is not.

In other words, "pigeons' fancy feathered feet are partially wings," says biologist Mike Shapiro, senior author of the study published today by the journal eLife.

In mutant pigeons with foot feathers, "the hindlimb is clearly recognizable as a leg, but it has taken on more forelimb characteristics," he says. "It's not a complete transformation of a leg into a wing. Rather, components of the leg are more winglike, including feathers and a larger leg bone."

So you've been show an example of a bird with scales, a process whereby it can happen to transform one to the other, another bird where this happens as a common mutation and we see the results in one generation caused by changes to two identified genes. Notwithstanding that there were actually some dinosaurs with feathers: 9 Dinosaurs With Feathers

'Birds are the closest relative to dinosaurs that are presently alive, and they are a type of reptile. Birds may look different than some of the dinosaurs you see in the movies, but many species of dinosaurs had feathers and resembled the feathered animals we see today.

In this article, you will learn about 9 dinosaurs with feathers. Birds and dinosaurs are closely related, and feathers are a common trait that both animals share. '

To deny that this actually happens would really be perverse.

 

[Bradskii]

You are stuck with that conclusion....

When all evidence points to it then what choice does one have? There is no other theory. Just a religious belief.

 

[Bradskii]

When He already knows how that child will be at 50? He alone has that advantage point.

So we have four answers in one.

One, you can see no problem in drowning children that have done no wrong.

Two, you believe that God knew that every single child would turn out so bad that you feel the acts were justified.

Three, He knew what was going to happen, so you think that He allowed them to be born with the express purpose of killing them for sins that they had no choice in avoiding (there went free will).

And four, you think that He was quite prepared to drown young children because He knew how they'd turn out but has not shown the slightest interest in removing people who are considered the most inhuman animals that have ever walked the planet (and we also have the advantage of knowing who they were), responsible for millions of deaths.

Interesting.